Interview: Karan Johar

Karan Johar talks to Baradwaj Rangan about how Aditya Chopra introduced him to the cinema of Mani Ratnam. He talks about how different things would have been had he presented SS Rajamouli’s Ega in the North.

Talking about 2.0, he says it’s going to have one of the biggest openings of Indian cinema and why it was a no-brainer to choose to distribute the film.

Calling Bahubali a ‘beautiful and creative slap on our faces’ he explains why South Indian films have always been the pioneers of new technology.

Multiple observations –
1. Arguably, the best explanation of a high-TRP, “TV-ready” masala movie (to Karan) – “one can start watching from any point of the movie…start/middle/end.” Loved the explanation. 🙂
2. Part of the appeal of the interview is that Karan makes a great interview subject – articulate, garrulous, candid (to the extent of not revealing numbers, but gracious in praise)
3, Pleasantly surprised by his pronunciation of Shankarabharanam(twice!).
4. Vishnuvardhan is directing a movie for Dharma Prod. Couldn’t he have found a better director from the South?

It’s strange, the effect a big hit or flop can make. Here Karan is talking in the light of Bahubali’s success, now after the stupendous failure of thugs, a lot that he says here looks stupid. The big event picture that was to drive the industry has left it in the dumps. the speed at which the film collapsed even with Aamir starring and Yashraj producing has scared the living daylights of the industry. And now with 4 event films under production, Karan would be nervous as hell. All of them except perhaps kesari with Akshay in a patriotic avatar looks very risky projects. Particularly brahmastra, Ranbir and Alia in a big masala fantasy directed by ayan Mukherjee, looks like the next big box office bomb. its even planned as a trilogy. Hope he knows what he is doing. Wish you had discussed a little bit about the effect of social media and exorbitant ticket prices that is taking it’s toll on theatrical film viewing. Those were 2 big factors in Thugs tanking so quickly

His comments on southern film industry was refreshing, especially about the insular nature of it and the star system. That was a nice anecdote about him and Adi Chopra watching sivaji.

Interesting interview. And yes, KJ hits the nail on the head when he says they got caught up in the star system. That said, swinging all the way to historicals/fantasies may not be the answer either and perhaps ToH has served early notice of that. To be fair, I couldn’t watch it and cannot judge it but the audience has judged it very harshly, I am afraid.

He mentions about romance being the in thing in the 90s. I don’t see any overwhelming evidence that it cannot work today. A Star Is Born was a runaway hit. It may be a remake but it’s a remake of a film not many people born in the 80s or later (like me) would have seen. I think somewhere filmmakers misread the market. They had introduced romcoms as a commercial dilution of the earlier more earnest romantic films and when romcoms began to flop in the noughties, they lost their confidence and gave up on romantic already when perhaps a honest treatment would have still interested the audience. Again, these too are suppositions. Legally Blonde was a massive hit but even much later, Ugly Truth (2009) hit the jackpot. Note: I am mentioning Hollywood trends here because there is no Bollywood equivalent of Star Is Born this year or in the last few years.

But to get back to the point, perhaps romantic films suffered due to tired treatment or miscast pairs that lacked chemistry. With Bollywood backed into a corner, perhaps they should take some risks now. When Baahubali has already happened, making an ‘event film’ is no longer a risk and runs the danger of being perceived as a wannabe product. A risk would be going against the tide and still succeeding. QSQT was made smack in the middle of Bollywood’s action phase and was a dream launch for its lead pair. There is no reason why it cannot be done again, with the right cast and right treatment. Jab We Met was not received very kindly by critics but was a sleeper hit where Saawariya suffered in competition with OSO.

I just remembered that it’s only two years ago that KJ had made ADHM and it had done good business at the BO. More proof that romance can work on the BO (even if in this instance, it didn’t work for me).

Nice interview. So much better when interviewer asks insightful questions than usual “how was it working with x, y, z ..”.

+1 on watching movies on TV starting at some random point. Do it all the time. Niche movies totally get destroyed on trp ratings even if they were reasonable successes during theatrical release. I wonder if this will again change with Netflix/Amazon where you have liberty of watching from start whenever you want.

@Madan – I think Karan is talking about a different scale. Well made romantic movies could work at box office. But not at the scale of Bahubali or Sultan. The inflation adjusted BO of movies like 90s romantic movies Hum Aapke Hain Kaun is way higher than Bahubali – something that is unlikely to happen if such movies are released today.

@Thupparivaalan : Didn’t intend to diss Vishnuvardhan. I should have worded it better.

I meant to say, in the context of KJ mentioning 2 potential indicators of success – grandeur/scale and hi-concept, I couldn’t slot Vishnuvardhan in either. Vishnu’s work is more…polished/a bit suave even, and falls squarely “in the middle”, as KJ said. Admittedly I haven’t seen his entire filmography, but Arindhum Ariyamalum, Aarambam, Pattiyal…none of them are hi-concept or grand. Obviously, he’s capable of directing either genre; just felt it odd that KJ as a producer picked him, considering his oeuvre.

Karan Johar is like a big noisy fart that has no smell. His incessant chatter on commerce and technical knowledge he is sharing, is at the most 101 level, very elementary, learnt from MBAs he has hired at Dharma with buzz words like “high-concept movie” and is not impressive. Unless you consider huge, loud noise impressive. Most of the interview I heard “bahubali”, “rajamouli”, “rana”.

e221: When it comes to movies from other regions, most of us ARE from Mars. 🙂 Have you heard people from the south claiming our films are the best, our music is the best, etc. (as though “best” is an objectively determinable thing), without even seeing/hearing much of what comes from the North.

I have an uncle who, every time he plays an MSV song, will say “Hindi la can anyone make this music?” And I’d see the point at least if he knew SDB and Salil and CR and was making the comparison afterwards. But he doesn’t listen to anything BUT Tamil music.

Similarly, I see Karan as someone who grew up with Hindi films, without much of exposure to southern films. What works for me (and what I found interesting in this interview) is that he doesn’t pretend to be an expert. He agrees he does not know these industries very well. He has made a business decision to partner with 2.0, and that’s all it is.

Now, you could argue that he should show a ‘creative’ interest in our films too, given that he’s a filmmaker, etc. But that that man, that that interest level.

I say this because ask the average Tamilian (not the experts on this blog 🙂 ) about Hindi films and they just think it’s all gloss and lots of money-spending and glamour, etc. Which it certainly is. But they are generally unaware of the Newtons and the Bareillys and the Sui Dhaagas and the Strees. Because it’s the big, splashy Bollywood film that gets most coverage in the Tamil press etc. (Even the Tamil YouTube reviewers rush out to review a Thugs, but not a Badhaai Ho.)

I have always maintained that MOST Indians consume entertainment in (1) their own language, and (2) maybe the blockbuster English/Hindi films.

I am fairly certain Karan would sound the same if asked about Marathi or Gujarati or Bengali films, or even foreign films. (In an earlier interview, I asked if he’d seen the canonical foreign films — the Bergmans, the Fellinis — and he instantly said no, he never got into that.)

But yes, “Kannad” is unforgivable 🙂 That’s not cinema. That’s about your countrymen

Many many Hindi speakers pronounce it Kannad. Same goes to ‘Taamil’. Many even confuse Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. I think it’s ok. Is it the way the languages are written in Hindi in the text books? Like how our Tamil books mention China as Cheena, Kerala as Keralam, etc.?

To add to my comment above, our movie industries are fairly insular. We don’t do subtitles well. We don’t even do dubbing well. We are happy catering to “our own” (not that there’s anything wrong with this, or that people SHOULD address an all-India market… plus, there’s the question of whether average folks will watch film not in their own language even if these films come with subtitles etc.)

I hope streaming (and the easy availability, therefore) of films from various languages will change things. But even this, I only see an incremental change.

Will the average viewer (again, not the cinephile) watch a subtitled Pariyerum Perumal or the hot new Netflix show? I’d say the latter.

South people also get North pronunciations wrong; they’re just oblivious to it (the way North is to how much they murder South pronunciations). When my thatha used to watch Sun News after lunch, we would wait for the newsreaders to say Bee-gaar. 😀 Without fail, they always pronounced it this way. Then, I remember an NDTV anchor (a Northie) pronouncing Malvani as Mal-vaani (it’s really Maalvanni). It took me a while to figure out which place she was referring to. 😀 What about foreign names? I remember one anchor (not English news) just stopped attempting to pronounce Witherspoon back when Reese Witherspoon won the Academy Award. Just the way Tony Greig always said Saachin Ten-doll-car till the end.

Plus there’s the question of whether Average Folks will watch film not in their own language even if these films come with subtitles etc

The Hindi dubbed version of Tamil movie “Sketch” has around 35M views. Aram which is a set in a typical Tamil background has 3.6M views. These are not low numbers and if we go inside the comments section of these movies, we can really get the pulse of the Ordinary hindi viewers. When I went through the comments section of the sketch, most of them were talking about teen crimes aspect than the masala aspect of the movie. Not only these 2 movies, but most of the south Indian movies also has millions of views on averages.

So Going by these numbers and the comments section, we can likely say that average Hindi audience does have an appetite for other language films. 3.5 crores of people are no way low numbers. So if things are changing at the average audience level. If so why not “Hindian” directors like Karan Johar? But then I cannot disagree with your point “That that man that that interest level”. But sadly one of the top indian directors in the world does not have interest at the level of the average Hindi audience.

The obvious answer for breaking the insulation is the distribution system in this case Youtube. Again I am not sure how many of them will pay to see the dubbed version if one charges a premium. That’s an entirely different question. But I am pleasantly surprised by this welcome change and how receptive Hindi audience is to these movies. The comments section could be revealing a lot.

But still don’t you feel that South Indian movies, directors, artists etc are heavily overshadowed with this “Bollywood” Perception at an international or even at the national stage? When they say Indian Stars, they talk about Ranveer and Ranbir? What about Vijay sethupathi and Fahad Fazil are they not Indian Stars? Do we need to really blame the ordinary folks for this or is it a perception created by Indian Media. How often the “Indian national media” have interviewed artist like Vijay sethupathi, Fahad Fazil etc. Why not give them more spotlight along with other Indian Stars so they too get the spotlight? why is that not happening? I am not going into the concept of North VS South. But It feels really irritating when some of the Hindi folks keep repeating I like sambar, I like Rajnikanth, I like idly etc when they give the specific interview to South Indian media. Have KJ said that “Nayagan” is the greatest crime movie when he gave an interview to Hindi media? Maybe or maybe not.I don’t know But Why not say the same when “Idly/Sambar story” in a Hindi/National media interview then? This double face is what irritates me most

“I hope streaming (and the easy availability, therefore) of films from various languages will change things. But even this, I only see an incremental change.”

Streaming services have certainly helped. I have watched more Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam movies in the past 1 year than all my life. I read your reviews, note down movies that sound interesting and when they come up on Prime or Hotstar, instantly lap up.

I second Rajesh here..I have watched more Malayalam and Telugu movies last year than before for sure…aided by BR and this blog commenters as well. There is so much potential here that nobody seems to understand! Subtitle and market it better to different regions and the people will watch it. Definitely on streaming..I don’t know about theatres though.

To gently rebutt your comment Mr BR, the hot new Netflix show is nothing but a well made show ..like pariyerum Perumal is..it needs to be marketed that way. People will watch something well made and honest ..like the hot shows on Netflix and like pariyerum Perumal..it needs to be marketed and packaged better. Why don’t they have a critical ly acclaimed Tamil movie section ? Or a must watch Tamil movie section which will initiate people into Tamil movies. If I can watch godfather and like it why can’t a new Yorker watch nayakan and love it?

@e221: Good point about the media and I agree. Well, the issue is the mediapersons have the same insularity that Indians in general have. More to the point, most of them are not very well informed. They also blindly ape Western media constructs. So, if Hollywood is a proxy for American movies, they think Bollywood is the corresponding proxy for India. And Bollywood does reach the most people BUT the regional industries also attract significant audiences, especially the ones down South. In that regard, yes, it is not too much to ask for them to be at least aware of the differences between the four Southern film industries. And yes, pl stop saying best Indian blah blah when you mean best in Bollywood.

@Vidya Ramesh: You can watch Godfather because you are comfortable with English. A New Yorker will not be. I would not like to presume, maybe you do, but only a small percentage of film lovers in India would watch European language (no English) films even with subtitles. Why else did UTV World Movies channel sink?

This Karan is way way better than the interviewer Karan. Interviewer asks Katrina to lift Varun D and asks her to guess his weight, bad TV at its best.

Compare this Karan with our very own Kamal Haasan. KH would show off saying “look ma how cool I’m, I know everything”, this KH shows off saying “look ma how cool I’m, I know zilch or next to zilch about Taamil or South cinema”

@ madan touche’. Point taken ,I don’t watch European movies. What iam wondering is this..I consider myself an average movie goer with a little more interest than normal in movies and TV, like most who read this blog are I presume. If I watch movies with subtitles more easily now than before won’t another indian do it, forget someone in new York. Is the language divide so much that watching a Tamil movie for a hindi guy the same as watching a French movie? I don’t think so..we have a lot of inherently indian things that will be interesting to an Audience which may not understand the language but will still enjoy it. I will point to the success of dubbed south Indian movies in hindi on Sony to prove that! I obviously don’t know how the markets work and all that. But with streaming online available now doesn’t it make sense to invest some energy into subtitling and and marketing to an Indian audience which is outside that state.
.

I ‘m an Algerian and here the Indian cinema = Bollywood. There’s a lot of tv channels of Bollywood and they showed it as Indian movies and when they shows the south movies we’ll get the Hindi dubbed ones. And everyone who show an interest in the Indian cinema refer to the Bad films as the South films. There’s a lot of fans for even Siddharth Malhotra but few ones know Vijay forget the fans.

Liked the interview quite a bit, BR let Karan speak almost non stop. However BR was trying very hard to keep the discussion South Indian films focused. He constantly brought it back on track specific to and in the context of SI Cinema.

My first SI film was Naykan which I watched in a film festival in Odean Cinema in Delhi, was literally blown over by it .Then in US a friend recommended to watch Iruvar, which again was a masterpiece .

I guess the only other movie that I have watched in Subtitles is Sairat.

P.S.- was recently watching Fanney Khan and AK said Chu###, the subtitles read- “those fu#### idiots” , my daughter was ROFLOL. I had to pretend that I did not see her laughing.

oh man one more KJo interview. KJo is getting wrong signals from BR Saab after his ADHM review and his lengthy interview here and the one in Chennai fest that he’s thinking something’s going on: Look at him expose his knee in the interview to BR..

Vidya Ramesh: For most people, cinema is just entertainment, it’s just comfort food. So they are OK with what entertainment they can get hold of without effort. It’s the same reason why most people listen to only chart topping pop music even today. Anything like subtitles requires an extra effort that they would not want to make. Dubbing is different but I can tell you that even otherwise well informed Northies often have massive misconceptions about South films and watch them the same way they would watch Gunda, in a so bad it’s good way. They think South films jump the shark all the time and filter out the ones that don’t fit this stereotype. Ultimately even KJ is only talking about visual spectacles like Baahubali, not a rip roaring satire like Soodhu Kavvum. At one level, the former appeals to the business man in him but at another the latter does not fit the larger than life image of South films.

And on the flipside, as BR said, in the South people think all Bollywood is glamour and glitz. I remember addressing a question on Quora from a Tamilian who said why are all Bollywood films so glamorous with skimply dressed heroines and vulgar lyrics. I was like (a) who says all Bollywood is like that and (b) like they don’t do that in Tamil.

I recently came across an interview of sorts with Radhika Apts and another Bollywood actor. It was like a chat show. The anchor asked Radhika whether she had done any film that she didn’t like. And Apte says, with a sarcastic tone and a giggle, that she did South Indian films. She said she did those for the money while waiting for better films to be offered to her (in Hindi of course)

That was when I felt that the attitude has actually not changed at all. They probably now are saying nice things to southern media because they realize there is money. But to them acting in a South Indian film is actually a climb down, a difficult fact to face because you need the work to sustain.

It is high time the South Indian producers and directors stop patronizing these people and identify people who are give respect and take respect.

OTOH I agree that streaming allows access to more films in all languages. I have seen Malayalam, Telugu and even Marathi films thanks to Amazon Prime. They have added Kannada films now and am looking forward to that as I don’t even need subtitles for Kannada films.

However if you expect me to go to a theater and watch films, I wouldn’t. It is just too much effort. And the cost is also prohiitive. In that sense I agree with Karan Johar. You need the visual spectacle to pull in the audience. A high concept film, like he says, will gather more eyeballs than footfalls.

. They probably now are saying nice things to southern media because they realize there is money. But to them acting in a South Indian film is actually a climb down, a difficult fact to face because you need the work to sustain.

Shaviswa, that’s been the case of every nort indian actress who made it big in South, from khushbhoo and nagma to the likes of kaajal to Rakul preeth. these people came south because they were rejected by the Hindi film industry. They would have liked nothing more than go back to Hindi if they had even a small opportunity for that. People like Rakul preeth still try with the odd aiyyari.

But I would cut Radhika some slack, she is a brilliant actress and different from the kaajals and nagmas.she got to do two balayya Films in Telugu for God sakes.probably She is talking from that experience

He got Shankarabharanam and Kanyakumari right. I was pleasantly surprised! His take about South Indian Film Industry mostly not caring about how their films do north of outside the 4 states (Well, maybe 3 states), is on point. And he does make an interesting subject.

It is also mostly true that he and ‘Bollywood’ actors in general talk so highly about certain Tamil (Telugu/Malayalam) films and the industry only when they provide interviews to the press from the South. Why don’t they speak about these when they are interviewed outside the South Indian Film Industry?

But gosh, he has started to get on my nerves a bit. Particularly in this with the constant fidgeting with his coat. What’s with him trying to keep it closed time and time again? Man, just Zip it Once and it is done! Then the deliberately-torn-tracks (is it tracks?) with his left knee popping up into view time and again was irritating to say the least. To think he is or thinks he is some fashion expert is laughable to me.

And when he says he would not promote a ‘high concept’ film even if he thinks it is good because it won’t make tons of money was kind of a letdown. He doesn’t have to, but surely, he can afford to promote such off-beat, rare ‘good’ films with the truck-loads of money he makes? He is in a position to take such steps but doesn’t want to or wont. Sigh.

@hari, whatever it was, the mind boggles at the thought of the money he would have paid for something so ugly. 🙂

FWIW, Johar has mentioned South Indian cinema in interviews to north Indian journalists. He even mentioned it in an interview on national television.

Sifter, I think, where smaller films from the South are concerned, he watches them but he wouldn’t bankroll them simply because he doesn’t see a pan Indian demand for them. He has been bankrolling smaller films in Hindi.

In 1941, Shanta Apte was roped in to play the lead in the Tamizh film “Savithri”. Apparently, M.S. Subbulakshmi was sidelined (played Naaradar instead). Today, it is Radhika Apte. Not much has changed. Within and outside cinema, the Tamizh woman gets the short shrift. Not against infusion of outside talent per se, but why reward the ingrates?

ThouShaltNot: Was MS really sidelined? I’d read that she was cast as Narada right from the beginning because Narada had all the songs? I remember an old interview with her where she said that they needed money to launch Kalki.

And in MS’s case, didn’t her husband decide for her what roles she would play, what she would speak about, how she would dress?

In any case, Shanta Apte is not the same as today’s North Indian imports. She studied Tamil for nearly a year before she played the role, and she dubbed for herself.

@Shaviswa: I can’t find the interview but Radhika Apte once spoke about her not-so-pleasant experiences working with certain Telugu stars. That’s probably where her discomfort with south comes from. In the same interview she says that, on the plus side Rajinikanth had teated her with utmost respect.

An Jo says: oh man one more KJo interview. KJo is getting wrong signals from BR Saab after his ADHM review and his lengthy interview here and the one in Chennai fest that he’s thinking something’s going on: Look at him expose his knee in the interview to BR..

An Jo: Reading this comment of yours, I feel you are so cruel to say this. Just amazed at your train of thought here. More than his knee, actually, it is your homophobia and cruelty that is getting exposed. You are also slut shaming him. Please think about what you said. Don’t you feel this is wrong? Why would you say such a thing?

Anu, my source for the remark about MS being relegated (rather than choosing) to play Naaradar is GS Mani, a MSV compeer and a trusted lieutenant for 10-plus years at the peak of his career. He is a font of information on movie topics that are HyderAliKaalam (so to speak) and a generally credible source. But I’ll allow that either he may have misrecalled the details or I could have mangled it myself. My larger point was about shopping outside for Tamizh film heroines (since HyderAliKaalam), which remains.

Regarding MS’s husband calling the shots (you are right), I’d have been more surprised if that weren’t so. Women living life on their own terms in T.N. was a figment of KB’s imagination. Except for rare instances, it was an ideal that didn’t exist. When I said, “Within and outside cinema, the Tamizh woman gets the short shrift” and left it there, I was being cagey. At first I overtly pinned the blame on Tamizh men for the sorry plight, but expunged the remark afraid this thread might devolve. Now that we are here, if you consider the parallel thread on loosu-ponnus for example, we narrowly focus on their peskiness and pretend as if they were all dropped from above by some Almighty loosu-ponnu. Who created these loosu-ponnus in Tamizh cinema? The director (a Tamizhan), the producer (a Tamizhan), the superhero (a Tamizhan) and the audience (Tamizhargal, but mostly comprised of Tamizhans). All of this (including the MS situation) falls under the general rubric of aan aadhikkam.

I trust you that Shanta Apte was not a fly-by-night operator, but my issue is less with Shanta Apte than with Tamizh society. The second disheartening picture is about the likes of Radhika Apte who cash in their checks and pooh-pooh behind our backs (assuming what was posted above is true). As an outsider, it is possible to pinpoint absurdities in another society while also having an overall healthy regard for it (its language, people, & elements of its culture). The key is direct and honest engagement with the group while remaining courteous.

I don’t know about the interview where Radhika Apte mocked the southern industries, but I do recall she said she was harassed (by a top Telugu hero) — so maybe that had something to do with her feelings about her experience here.

Thoushaltnot, thanks for that response. Perhaps, as always, the truth is more complicated than we think it is. I do remember reading a very rare article on her where they quoted her as saying she signed Savitri because they needed the money. Your source seems equally credible. So perhaps it is a mixture of both/ and perhaps it is neither. 🙂

I agree with you that with some exceptions, women in cinema (not just the loosu ponnus) are the creation of men in cinema; they seem to exist only in their imagination of what a woman should be.

Re: Radhika Apte – I am a huge fan of the actress and have been following her interviews for some time now. Honestly, like BR, I haven’t come across one interview where she mocked the South Indian industries. Yes, she did speak about someone misbehaving with her. And she did probably sign that film just for the money. But she also spoke about some similar experiences with the Hindi industry.

I’m not saying I may not have missed it but it does seem highly unlikely from the usual way she talks about her work. She did speak highly about her experiences on the sets of Kabali. So perhaps I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I do agree with your larger point – many North Indian stars did work in the South industries when their careers were on the downward curve. But today, many of them want to work with good directors down south.

Anu Warrier: I don’t know quite what it is that aggravates male feelings so much about men indulging in very modest skin show. There was hilarious outrage when Zverev chose not to wear socks for the pre-World Tour Final group photo.

You should see her in that Neha Dhupia show. She and another Bollywood actor. So Neha asks that question about doing things she didn’t like doing or something like that. She responds with a sarcastic tone on doing South Indian films. Almost as if she was embarrassed to admit it.

She of course has good things to say about Rajanikanth even in that show.

shaviswa: I think you are talking about her Vogue BFF appearance with Rajkumar Rao. She was asked what bizarre jobs she did initially, she mentioned working in the South Indian films. She said they pay you well and you deserve it because it’s hard. She went to voice complaints about sexism in the South so she seemed to be saying it was hard BECAUSE of the sexism.

@shawisva, I have never watched those; perhaps I should. I know she’s said that the difference in the way they treat the men and women is palpably different. I think, at least from what a quick Googling told me, that she is talking specifically about the sexism on the sets, and about one particular incident where she actually slapped a top male co-star because he came onto the sets and began to tickle her feet.

I won’t belabour this point because, like I said, I haven’t watched that interview; but she has been pretty outspoken about these kind of experiences on the sets of a couple of her films in Hindi as well.

I didn’t want to comment here; but seems like I have already been issued a character-certificate; reminds me of the olden days when folks needed TC – to get transferred from one school to another.

So I am a cruel-being with homophobictendencies. Right! Here’s my ‘knee-jerk’ responses to KJo exposing his knee..

Firstly, since I am from Bombay, I recognize this So-Bo snobs who dis-regarded masala, and I say this from inner-quarters ‘listening’..

I am unable to fathom the kind of publicity this charlatan gets on this blog,, and my response was apt..Hell. even KJo would be surprised at the kind of free publicity this man gets here..so he’s well, let’a make hay when the sun shines, right!?
This is a man who, along with the Delhi-born, arrogant-just-because-of-the-accidents-of-birth, mocked the masala traditions, and today, is ma@#$%^^*ing to the economies that this genre of film-making contributes; the fact that he is humping onto BB and now to ROBOT is ample-proof..

And for those who have already conducted a Freudian analysis of my statement, THODA THAANDA RAKHO…not everybody is a Modi who equates PUPPIES = MUSLIMS..if you care to get my drift..

Not so fast, AnJo. Here, let me reproduce the original text of your comment that sparked some outrage.

‘KJo is getting wrong signals from BR Saab after his ADHM review and his lengthy interview here and the one in Chennai fest that he’s thinking something’s going on: Look at him expose his knee in the interview to BR” – Wrong signals, something’s going on, expose his knee. Where did you really think you were going with this? I hate SoBo snobs too, especially the ones who wear their tatti Hindi with pride on their sleeves. But this was going way beyond that. Were you really insinuating nothing at all with words like wrong signals or expose? It’s not 2003, Madhur Bhandarkar is no longer the master of sleeper hits and gay jokes are not funny anymore. Does that mean you have no right to make them? Of course you do. But expect to deal with the brickbats, don’t act innocent.

BR- PS: Of course, this isn’t to say I won’t interview the sound designer etc. Just making a point about what people typically watch and what they don’t.

Hahaha . I feel your pain. i think clarifying what one does not mean is as important as conveying what one means in this era of internet where words are analysed more vigorously than a dead body in a forensic crime fiction novel.

Swati, more than one person talked about torn expensive clothes. Hari and me, for instance. That wasn’t the elephant in the room, thank you very much.

An J0 – your character certificate didn’t come from your complaining about the interview. It came about what you implied with your statement – that Karan Johar was making a pass at BR because BR had given – according to you – Karan free publicity by interviewing him twice.

So yes, you get called out on that. That was a slur on Johar’s alleged sexuality whatever it is (or isn’t – I don’t care), as well as on BR for interviewing him. Please don’t pull the ‘I’m innocent; it’s all in your [dirty] mind’ defence.

FC , the highly “esteemed” channel, usually interviews all the BW “talented” insiders like Sweta Bachchan and upcoming RJ called Kareen Kapoor while real actors like Gajraj Rao and many many countless others that are conveniently ignored. Aside from these nepo issues, I am aghast at the rampant homophobia here on this blog where everyone is so “educated”. If Kjo, the master of vulgarity in his KwK interviews and barely masked sexual innuendo thrown around with abandon, makes a pass or shows “interest” then why do people go so very offensive and BR going defensive.
Instead of taking it lightly in humourous way, the way AJ wrote, everyone is being serious homophobic here! if Kjo gives me, a male journa some suspicious bhav, I would take it as compliment and be on my way!!

A) An Jo wasn’t being humorous or light as his next comment should alert you, if it hadn’t already.

B) I have no objection to Karan Johar making a pass at anybody. I do, however take objection to the idea that BR interviewing him twice has given Karan ‘the wrong signal’ or that Karan misinterpreted BR’s ‘interest’ (‘wrong signal’) and made a pass at him on national television by ‘flashing his knee’. That comment is seriously mean on several fronts.

Objecting to that interpretation is not homophobic. (You might want to check what homophobic means, by the way.) Nor are we defending BR for the simple reason that he doesn’t need defending.

An Jo made a statement which many of us interpreted the same way – that he was implying that Karan was making a pass at BR because BR made him feel he was interested.

*Aside from these nepo issues, I am aghast at the rampant homophobia here on this blog where everyone is so “educated”

Instead of taking it lightly in humourous way, the way AJ wrote, everyone is being serious homophobic here!*

Seriously? That’s what you gathered from all your time here. Being the lowly minion that I am, I agree with both BR and HRH Anu. 1) Once in a while do try to read other comments before commenting and 2) Please check the meaning of homophobia.

The way AJ was attacked for his amusing comment made in light-hearted spirit on Karan whose sexuality is open secret reeks of homophobia. People went defensive and offensive ninja moves and none of those knee jerked reactions and comments, had Kjo been straight. So once again chor ki dhadi mai… I hope you get rid of this phobia as soon as possible because after all y’all are educated, liberal bunch of people. It is perfectly ok for straight or not straight people to flirt. In interviews or otherwise. And sometimes audience can sense things more objectively.

P.S. Kjo puts videos out on his “pata-purana” designer jeans and his dressing style comments from Kiran almost on daily basis. At least he has a self-deprecating sense of humour.

P.P.S. it is for publicity, do we need to utter such truism? And if it is given as explanation then it is defensive move.

@Swati- I guess people here are comfortable with a gay man making a pass on a straight man, provided that has actually happened. But the insinuation that the pass happened because of the way one had dressed is making itself open to backlash. And the reactions would have been the same if the insinuation was against a female interviewee making a pass on a male interviewer because of the way she dressed. Homophobia has nothing to do with it.

It is perfectly ok for straight or not straight people to flirt. In interviews or otherwise.

Again, no one said otherwise.

If the interviewee had been a woman and An Jo had made the comment saying that ‘‘She is getting wrong signals from BR Saab after his review and his lengthy interview here and the one in Chennai fest that she’s thinking something’s going on: Look at her expose her knee in the interview to BR” , I would still have called An Jo out for being nasty about it.

The imputation that An Jo made was pejorative. And it is that which is getting called out. So before you call us out on our ‘thieves and beards’, perhaps you should really look at what is being called out.

Dear BR, Read your comments and found that “None of these interviews are random”. I totally understand that. I have heard from you before here in the comment section or when you were interviewed that you wanted to make a book on KBs work by conversing with him but it didn’t materials due to not much encouragement from the publishers. I don’t know if you missed any other wishes perhaps Balu Mahendra, MSV etc.

I would really appreciate if you can start a thread with your wish list (that’s also feasible) and call out for a poll so that you can come up with many more interviews that you also really want to.

“The way AJ was attacked for his amusing comment made in light-hearted spirit on Karan whose sexuality is open secret reeks of homophobia. ” – Did not sound light hearted spirit. Mean spirited is nearer the mark. The insinuation was that because BR is (unprofessionally) inviting KJ over and over, KJ is starting to get ideas and flirting with him. Is that really supposed to be amusing? Would you find it amusing if somebody said that of you? Going by your short fuse, I find that highly unlikely.

And yes, you don’t even understand what homophobia means. However, suggesting that somebody wearing torn jeans is making a pass at another man is the very essence of homophobia and the male equivalent of slut shaming.

” It is perfectly ok for straight or not straight people to flirt.” – It is ok to flirt. It is not ok to insinuate flirtation only because a particular guest is seen to be getting too many interviews. And as BR has pointed out, that is not true at all (that KJ has been interviewed too often by BR) and speaks more for AnJo’s irritation at KJ being given this platform by BR. If a female journalist wears a short dress while interviewing some eminent personality, it doesn’t immediately follow that she is trying to seduce him. Inferring intent from the extent of skin show is a very primitive idea.

It’s a nice interview. KJo is certainly quite articulate, although a bit misguided.

The success of Baahubali does not necessarily mean big-ticket extravaganzas are in. Thugs of Hindostan proves this theory wrong. And how!

A lot of these period pieces are going to bite the dust and only a handful will succeed. I’m not sure 2.0 will make it big in the North either. The kind of films Shankar makes are mostly considered meme-worthy — and not in a good sort of way.

If the fate of Race 3 and ToH is anything to go by, 2.0 will be lucky to last a full weekend!

Having said that, I’m not at all a fan of Baahubali. I could only bear to watch the first half of part 1 and had to shrug off its success as one of the undecipherable mysteries of the universe. So what do I know?

Part of me thinks he’s just throwing around words just for the heck of it. Andhadhun certainly wasn’t a high-concept film. Its opening day earnings were a paltry 2.5 crores. Only after the reviews and WOM turned out to be extremely positive did the film pick up. It’s the very definition of a niche film. Also, an artistic endeavour.

I have seen Zero’s trailer and I can’t figure out what the film is about. Badhai Ho perhaps comes closest to the definition of the term but even so, it did benefit from the surprise success of Andhadhun. Ayushman Khurana isn’t quite a star…yet.

Given that only one of KJo’s films has ever crossed the coveted 100 crore mark, in recent times at least, he should be the last person to comment on what works and what doesn’t. But it’s nice to see that he is a genuine film-buff. For him to mention Mani Rathnam’s films was quite a big plus for me.

Saket: A high-concept film is one whose unique premise can be easily distilled into a line. The most famous high concept is “Alien is Jaws in space.”

So Badhaai Ho is certainly a kind of high concept: “Ayushmann’s mother gets pregnant…”

As is Zero: “SRK plays a dwarf…”

The interest level (or the hook for the audience) is instantly established — as opposed to say TOH, where you’d say “Aamir and Amitabh battle the British”. This is not AS hook-y because there have been many Hindi films whose protagonists battle the British.

High-concept narratives are typically characterised by an overarching “what if?” scenario that acts as a catalyst for the following events. Often, the most popular summer blockbuster movies are built on a high-concept idea, such as “what if we could clone dinosaurs?”, as in Jurassic Park.

However, it is important to differentiate a high-concept narrative from an analogous narrative. In the case of the latter, a high-concept story may be employed to allow commentary on an implicit subtext. A prime example of this might be George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, which asks, “What if we lived in a future of totalitarian government?” while simultaneously generating social comment and critique aimed at Orwell’s own (real world) contemporary society. Similarly, the Gene Roddenberry sci-fi series Star Trek went beyond the high-concept storytelling of a futurist starship crew, by addressing 20th century social issues in a hypothetical and defamiliarising context. Planet of the Apes (1968) likewise engages in social commentary regarding race relations and other topics from modern human society via the lens of the ape civilization, in part as a response by screenplay co-writer Rod Serling to his experiences of anti-semitism

At best, this is a borrowed term, from the west, used in a Bollywood context. What a surprise!

But as is usually the case, the term has its own set of nuances as well. Badhai Ho is more of an analogous narrative.

When I mentioned Zero’s trailer, I was referring to the fact that there appears a spaceship at the end! That there is an image of SRK running around in his striped underwear in the middle of Times Square. I do get the hook part about Zero. But after watching the trailer, I don’t get the feeling that it’s an easy-to-grasp idea. Another important characteristic of a high-concept film.

Kung Fu Panda is the ultimate high-concept movie because the title explains the premise. High concept in films as BR explained, does not mean what most people think it means or even what it means in literature. (I learned this this a screenwriting class.)

@Arjun : I think the real issue wasn’t even whether what Hardik said was misogynist but that he openly talked about loosing his virginity and telling his parents that karke aaya. That is, beneath the outrage couched in suitable vocabulary, it was our squeamishness about discussing sex openly that came to the fore. Middle aged unclejis who would normally pay no attention to an actress complaining about sexual harassment or even call it a fake allegation were now bashing Hardik and KLR. Why? Because they don’t want their kids to hear it from cricketers (whom kids follow).

And this brings me to the disgusting hypocrisy of the whole thing. It is well known that KWK is a no holds barred semi roast kind of show where this kind of talk is allowed unfiltered. If people found it so objectionable coming from cricketers, why did they accept it for so long from movie stars? If they are so staunchly against misogyny, why do they watch the show? Because two actresses had accused KJ of molestation. By the MeToo standards of guilty until proven innocent, he ought to be persona non grata. But not only is he doing absolutely fine, I even read articles justifying his position, saying once the genie was out of the bottle, KJ couldn’t do anything to put it back in when in fact he usually specialises in egging on his guests to indulge in this very kind of talk. The reaction of BCCI has been disproportionate, needless to say. If they are so particular about their reputation, they should compel players to take permission from them for all media appearances. First you let them get on the show and then you drop them from a whole tournament without it being about performance, fixing, doping or anything related to cricket? What the heck is this! Why are cricketers supposed to be saints? Doesn’t this say much more about how infantile we are as a people? And to say nothing of the hypocrisy. I bet self same middle age unclejis share non veg jokes on Whatsapp with a snigger. Ah, it’s private, right?

Arjun: Given the traditional lack of protection given to the film industry, I would not blame Karan Johar or anyone who had crores riding on his/her projects. Look what happened during Ae Dil… He was forced to apologise and recut his film.

What is going to happen if Karan supports Pandya? Most likely, some “save Indian culture” group like the one that marauded the Padmaavat sets is going to make sure his life becomes hell.

My disappointment is more with Kohli, who has been toeing the official line and muttering the politically correct statements. For heaven’s sake, one of your players like having sex and is open about it. Get over it.

Also, note how no one took offence when Deepika Padukone was asked what she notices first in a man and she “eyed” Karan’s crotch. Everyone laughed (as they should). This is that kind of show, where people admit to these “shocking” things that may or may not be true. But no one said “oh, she has insulted Indian womanhood”…

BR – I think it’s not a simple case of a player having sex and enjoying it. The answers from Hardik reveal objectification of woman, typical alpha male behavior as Arjun put it. At the least, a gender sensitisation is necessary. I am still wondering what did poor Rahul do? From what I read, his responses were normal.

The biggest hypocrite in this whole process is BCCI. Only a month back, they had a shoddy investigation on sexual harassment charges against their CEO, where the victims were marginalized and now everyone is getting on the high horse. A definite over reaction.

@BR: It is strange you’re more disappointed in Kohli who had no role in any of this business than the instigator and accused no 3 KJo himself. I put that down to your personal acquaintance with KJo coloring your opinion (natural human tendency). Yes, Kohli could have come out in support of Pandya and Rahul, but maybe he’s not risking any more off-field controversy after that video of his where he told someone that they should not live in India if they like foreign cricketers more than Indian ones (idiotic thing to say, esp. in the present political climate) blew up and nearly threatened to invite more consequences for himself. In fact had it been a lesser player, I suspect the mob would have bayed for his blood. In this day and age, the mob, be it Hindutva or liberal or feminist can bring anyone to their knees including the mighty Kohli. As an aside, Kohli should be thankful his typical west Delhi locker room talk from his younger days are not part of the public record.

@ Arjun: Wasn’t sure where to post this. Just wondering what others here think of the Hardik Pandya, KL Rahul saga. Surely the poor fools have been shamed enough, not to mention lost money and work after being banned from the ongoing ODI series. I found nothing “misogynistic” or “sexist” about Pandya’s comments, only typical alpha-male bragging about conquests with women. The reactions have been over the top to say the least –

COMPLETELY agree with you. This is LUDICROUS to say the least; this reaction. Hey, but what to say? If you are not politically correct, you bear the brunt! It’s not just mamajis or unclejis, but the so-called ‘liberals.’ Haven’t we seen it here itself?

Yesterday, I was thinking of requesting an OTT thread for this issue, but decided against it.

+1 to Srinivas R’s comment. So true. Dealing with sexual harassment is much more important than this.

Hardik Pandya was roasted on twitter, and rightly so, and that should’ve been the end of it. The mind boggles thinking of the BCCI’s overreaction.

Do the cricketers need to ask permission before attending any freaking show? It’s at least understandable if it was related to cricket remotely. What’s the need to show themselves as responsible egalitarians when they aren’t?

One more thing – most of the media reports about this affair go like ” ……taking a strong stand against the sexist and misogynist remarks by cricketers Pandya and KL Rahul, the BCCI…..”. Excuse me, since when did it become acceptable to write this way. Finding something sexist or misogynist is an opinion; such strong negative adjectives must always be prefixed with allegedly…”allegedly sexist”, “allegedly misogynist”. Other possibilities – “comments which some/many (but not most, unless they carried out a survey using a true random sample) perceived as sexist, or simply say “controversial comments”.Sheesh, don’t they teach these things in journalism 101? Idiots, the lot of them.

Yeah the BCCI has completely stepped out of its bounds. Does it even have the legal right to take action against the players for any non-cricket related issue?

There are many ways the BCCI can show that it cares about women rather than punishing the two players.

I didn’t think Kohli’s reaction was too bad. I think he said that those views are not the views of the cricket team. I thought that was fine. The BCCI could have similarly said that these are an individual’s views and not the views of our organisation (or something to that effect). Or they could have just stayed mum.

“I didn’t think Kohli’s reaction was too bad. I think he said that those views are not the views of the cricket team.”

I agree, it was a standard, mild acceptable (although not ideal) statement from Kohli. But the more troubling thing is that these players did not even express any “views”. In fact as Srinivas pointed out, KL Rahul actually didn’t say anything at all! Pandya simply described how he picked up women at clubs and that sex is discussed openly in his family. No judgemental remarks about women, how they dress or anything. In other words, nothing “sexist” or misogynistic.”. still don’t realize what they are being punished for. Like Madan says, it is probably the Indian squeamishness about discussing sex openly and the pressure on cricketers to be role models that is the issue here. Pathetic stuff from the media and BCCI.

Johar on his show was like the IPL cheerleaders, egging on the boys to score. He was complicit in encouraging the cricketers to show utter disrespect to women; anything he says now after the furore will not count. This is the same man who had, as Me Too revelations exploded in India, apologised for objectifying women in the song ‘chikni chameli’. Guess what, Karan Johar, you actually succeeded in making ‘chikni chameli’ look respectable! Johar may yet apologise because when the going gets tough, the filmmaker backtracks and goes all meek. Until the next time.

Karan Johar should be in the dock, just like the cricketers, who have been issued notice by the cricket board BCCI partly in response to the public outcry. Are you telling me the board is unaware of the monsters it is breeding, as shallow as the T-20 game they play?

The definition of a world-class player is his ability to handle fame with dignity. Captain Virat Kohli’s brashness gets hidden by his enormous talent. From the days of VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid, how the mighty are falling. Thank god for Cheteshwar Pujara.

@An Jo- Apart from the fact that she reminds people of Karan Johar’s role, that article is pure bullshit. #metoo? cultural appropriation? Wtf. Journalists just love to drop the latest buzzwords irrespective of context or relevance.

“Methinks the BCCI is overreacting – and worse, is hypocritical – aren’t they the same guys who welcomed scantily clad cheerleaders into cricket? What price ‘objectification of women’ then?” – Not to mention they had Mandira Bedi as a host long before they ever welcomed female cricket players as commentators. I mean, sure, it was Set Max and not BCCI themselves but the same template was followed by IPL too.

While i agree that there is not much freedom of expression in India, I disagree with Harini Calamur regarding this – ” In any liberal democracy, we have the right to express ourselves without fear of consequences on our right to be, and our right to livelihood.”
The right to freedom of expression does not give you immunity from consequences. Someone has questioned if BCCI has the legal right . There is usually a clause in most employment contracts that will give the employer this right, an example could be an action that could bring the employer or the game of cricket , in this case, into disrepute. Regardless of whether you agree with their invoking of this clause , I am sure that it is very hard to surmount a legal challenge against it.
Hypocrisy is not an argument , really. The BCCI may be inconsistent but that by itself does not constitute a reason as to why they should not have taken action against them.
Also, what Pandya seems to have done is to have hooked up for casual sex with women at clubs. (by his own account). This is not quite similar to Deepika sexualising K Jo. Using your celebrity status to get laid is , at least , in my book not quite the same thing as hooking up with people in your social circle , or dating one or multiple people at the same time.
It can be argued that since Pandya was getting laid due to the popularity of the game of cricket, and the BCCI punished him for bringing into disrepute the godly aura that surrounds a cricket star in India, then it is like poetic justice.
Finally, I agree that bringing the supreme court of the government into this is highly stupid and nonsensical and it also violates the freedom of expression. But then, India has always had laws to curb FOE and this is nothing new.

“The BCCI may be inconsistent but that by itself does not constitute a reason as to why they should not have taken action against them.” – Perhaps so but at the very least Rahul Johri should not have been involved in deciding on the misogyny or otherwise of Hardik Pandya. Or was his gender sensitivity training also fast tracked just the way his hearing was? I think Edulji means well but Pandya has unwittingly got caught in the crossfire. The original punishment of a two match suspension suggested by Rai was quite enough but Edulji wanted to get her own back, having not had a say in the Rahul Johri investigation.

“Also, what Pandya seems to have done is to have hooked up for casual sex with women at clubs. (by his own account)” – Is that wrong though? Still think this has much more to do with talk about sex being a taboo in India than being against misogyny. Which is alright, I mean I don’t hold any great hopes to see a quantum leap in our attitude overnight. Just as long as the real reason for censuring him is recognised.

“Is that wrong though? Still think this has much more to do with talk about sex being a taboo in India than being against misogyny.”
Madan , I am just giving my two cents on this . I don’t think its proper for a star to use their celebrity status to get laid and then brag about it , as if it were a conquest. I do not have a problem with someone having a relationship with single/multiple other partners of either sex/sexuality.

Secondly , the criteria of punishment by BCCI which is a for- profit entity is entirely something else. It need not subscribe to any moral standard. It may have been something as mundane as the fact that a Casanova image of cricketers would hit their popularity and tarnish their image in general and thereby affect their bottom line. They do not owe anybody a moral reason.

Thirdly, neither my opinion of them nor the punishment by BCCI affects their freedom of expression , as I understand it. (But if the supreme court rules on it, then it will)

” I don’t think its proper for a star to use their celebrity status to get laid and then brag about it , as if it were a conquest. I do not have a problem with someone having a relationship with single/multiple other partners of either sex/sexuality.” – I admit I could not (not that I wanted to) watch the actual convo between KJ and the players before it got taken down by Star and am going only by the quotes produced in news reports. But based on what I read, I did not get a sense of Hardik going for conquest any more than what would be expected in the context of a sleazy show where the guests routinely talk about getting laid. He said he points out which girls he fancies to his relatives and told KLR that it’s all about talent as to who gets which girl. This could be argued to be in bad taste (and I think they were) but this was Koffee with Karan. If the board or even the team management greenlighted this interaction, I blame them. If not, of course, Hardik is to blame for going to a show like this but I doubt that was the case. But in either case, nowhere did he suggest that these relations were non-consensual or anything that would encourage such a line of thought. And if Hardik is using his celebrity status, it cuts the other way too; there are plenty of star struck girls out there who want to boast about having had sex with a cricketer. Why do we want to pretend that is not the case and it’s only a one way street?

“the criteria of punishment by BCCI which is a for- profit entity is entirely something else. It need not subscribe to any moral standard. ” – Ah, but this is a slippery slope as it would reopen the whole debate as to why a private for-profit non accountable body is entitled to a monopoly over cricket and calls the whole raison d’etre of having a COA to manage cricket in India. It was because of such goof ups that the SC entrusted cricket to the COA and now they too are found to be making questionable decisions. When it’s cricket in India, people are going to talk and COA will not be able to hide behind the private entity ruse for too long.

Madan – this is what he said – “My parents asked me which girl is yours- and I said ye wala , ye wala , ye wala as in I had something going on with everyone in the room” he says with a smirk on his face.
I am not an avid watcher of that show . Is this a regular practice ? If it is, it is still in bad taste.

Secondly, yes definitely it is not a one way street. I am in no way suggesting it is non consensual or illegal. But I still will judge a celebrity who does that, just because this is a grey area. It is different from regular run of the mill philandering because of the very fact that fans are star struck and the celebrities should undertake that extra responsibility to not take advantage.

Finally, yes , there are many problems with the way BCCI is governed. Actually the principle of the public image of a private entity is by itself hypocritical Just making the point that this is not an exception but rather the rule. For example, if I make a racist tweet from my twitter account and my employer comes to know of it, it is very likely that i may get fired. The ICC itself has some rules about spirit of cricket etc. which have always been applied rather inconsistently.

“It is different from regular run of the mill philandering because of the very fact that fans are star struck and the celebrities should undertake that extra responsibility to not take advantage.” – And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will continue to presume that Pandya did not take advantage. Trash talk is in bad taste – but as I said, so is KWK in general which is what makes the whole outrage rather bizarre – but it cannot be mistaken for the deed itself. Now if women do come forward and haul Pandya over the coals with stinging accusations, it is entirely different. But even after reading your quote, I don’t find anything in it to suggest he forces himself on women. It is a risque thing to say but if we take a view that what is risque is outright malignant, then I have to disagree with you and say there is not much free speech for the players.

“Actually the principle of the public image of a private entity is by itself hypocritical” – That may be so but a business is not democratic anyway and they have the authority to act as they see fit to preserve their image…within of course the boundaries of what is legal. In my company, town halls have regressed from being free for all extempore interactions to webcasts with pre-vetted questions with employees having to give name and location (so they can presumably be upbraided for asking ‘unwanted’ questions to the top management). Par for the course as far as corporates go so any expectation of democratic behaviour from them would be misplaced.

The problem is when BCCI starts to act in this way like a business empire trying to save its image. It is a public institution unless it wishes to cede its monopoly over cricket, therefore questions will continue to be asked over how and on what basis was it decided to leave both players out of the tour and why on earth was KLR given the same punishment as Pandya. If the argument is he kept quiet and did not protest Pandya’s statements, neither did KJ so why don’t BCCI sue KJ for bringing Indian cricket to disrepute. I know it sounds ridiculous but so does the whole thing in general to me. The best recourse would have been a steep monetary punishment to compensate BCCI for the loss of image. Tying that, though, with their eligibility for the cricket team doesn’t make sense. The fans watch wanting the best team to enter the field in order that it wins. They are going to ask whether the best team was denied to the captain on legitimate grounds.

Rahul : I inferred from “taking advantage of” to mean “forcing himself upon “. It need not be a pure non consensual act but a sort of “Hey, are you really going to turn down Hardik Pandya, girl” attitude. Let girls come forward stating that yes he used to bully them to offer sexual pleasures and then we would have a different kind of discussion altogether.

@ Madan, I don’t think so – at least, not in his case. That team has been with him for a long, long time. And they honestly adore the man – he’s a great boss.

I think what he’s saying is that while he, as a man, may not have been offended, his female team didn’t flag it as bad either. Like a lot of us women who just thought Pandya was being an ass and needed some sensitivity training but didn’t think too much of it beyond that.

He is known for editing stuff out if his team calls out stuff. Which is why I was surprised at the brouhaha and also why his apology and acceptance of responsibility for the consequences does mean something.

Anu Warrier: Fair point. Stands to reason that if many women were in fact not overly perturbed by Pandya’s comments, so too KJ’s team may not have been either. Ultimately he owned responsibility for it being his show and that matters more than anything.